Etiquette pt 1 - Messy Ethics

Alright, So as some who read this might be aware, I'm working on a thesis that wants to develop ontologically based ethics.....and as I work through this I realize more and more that the very nature of ethics is at stake in what I'm working on. We can talk of different types of ethics, virtue-rule-etc... But we are starting to realize as a philosophical community (and it seems the nonphilosophical community has had this intuition since the dawn of civilization) that ethics are NEVER as clearcut as what we think. The first stage in my development of 'etiquette' as opposed to ethics (part of my thesis goal) is to show that "ethics" are not satisfactory in terms of guiding moral life, action, etc...

So let's just start with the basics for now....ethics are messy.

Let me put out a few of the typical examples, that escalate.

Stealing is morally wrong - isn't it?

1) Joel steals $2 from Matt in order to buy a case of beer.
2) Joel steals $20 from Matt in order to buy a case of beer.
3) Joel steals $2000 from Matt in order to spend a week in Germany drinking beer.
4) Joel steals $2 from Matt in order to feed himself.
5) Joel steals $20 from Matt in order to feed himself for the week (PBJ!)
6) Joel steals $2000 from Matt in order to start a vegetable garden.
7) Joel steals $xxx from Matt in order to feed starving children.
8) Joel steals bread from Matt in order to......

You guys get the idea, at what degree does Robin Hood become a hero, and not a thief? To what degree is Joel allowed to steal in order to do what with the stolen goods?

We could run through this with most of our "moral maxims" like killing, lying, etc...

Ethicists have carefully taken up these positions and begun to define contextual circumstances that may or maynot allow for actions that might be deemed immoral to be taken.

My question then becomes, without going into the various solutions to solve the "murkiness" of the ethical or moral maxim, can a contextual analysis alleviate this problem.

I want to say that theoretically it cannot. I can just pull the skeptic card here - on what standard willl we judge one's contextual analysis, and why that standard? The reason I think this card is a valid trump - is that the contextual situation is based so heavily in the person's individual experience of the situation.

Some might say that a single mother with 3 children who is unemployed is justified in stealing bread to feed her children - others might say she isn't, as the state is there to help (or family, or churches, etc...). I'd say that if the mother is unaware of the state's aid, or has negative feelings towards the state's aid, or other countless emotional blocks or setbacks or preconcpetions, theneither position becomes relevant or irrelevant. The problem is that human psychology is such that we cannot just say that given knowledge of an aid program, people will all feel that it is a better option than stealing. We can say that it is - but then we are coming from a moral highground - something that I am unwilling to do. Understandings of a moral highground pave the way for Frege and Hitler and Stalin and {insert pet Facist here}.

We have to accept that people's perceptions and emotional connections to situations will shade their understanding of right and wrong - and given this, the murkiness in ethical theory seems to stand - an unpassable bog of gray, doubt, and confusion.